Which implies that it needs a defense. Sans that it can be brought down. Governments can ban GPUs, mining rigs etc. so the defense gets weak while they can have powerful hardware.

What does the technology have to prevent such a thing from occurring?

Bitch please, ban computer parts?They don't need to make a PC revolution to make a 51% attack, they have lots of super-computers to make a lot of floating points operations that, if they want it today, they can make the 51% attack.

Not really.

There are super computers, but generally they are already committed to tasks other than fucking with bitcoins and floating point operations also don't have much to do with SHA-2 hashing. There isn't a single supercomputer that could 51% the bitcoin network on its own. Traditional and even newer GPGPU supercomputers are actually a really shitty way to attempt a 51% attack.

Of course there isn't a single computer that could do the job. I said about he floating point operations because the main operation of a common GPU are floating point operations, since in our fake 3D games there are no integer numbers.

I know that every single supercomputer of a government already have a task, I'm just saying that they have enough power to easily make a 51% attack, but, why in the hell they would make it? BTC network is weak and they dont care about BTC, today.

What are you suggesting? That a political organisation might turn down a massive bribe? Maybe you're forgetting just how massive it is. We're talking about 51% of all transaction fees, plus 51% of all newly-created money, of a worldwide currency. That's a central banker's dream (well, they dream of complete control, but I think they're all aware that's never going to happen with a world currency). You really think anyone would rather try to destroy us (with no guarantee of success, I might add) than take a 51% cut? I don't.

"massive"? Some millions $ is "massive" for you? Oh LOL. In case you don't know the guys i'm speaking about (banks, governments, etc) daily spend billions of $. Dozens of thousands of millions. The 51% cut is peanuts for them. Also remember, if bitcoin become successfull they will lose billions.

If Bitcoin becomes successful, they stand to gain billions by working with it rather than against it (sure, it's not worth billions now, but it will be if it ever reaches the stage where it becomes a serious "threat"). And if it doesn't become successful, why go to the trouble?

The other thing is that as bitcoins increase in value, mining becomes more profitable, which means more people will mine, which makes it harder and more expensive to pull of a 51% attack. When Bitcoin is worth enough to pose even a slight threat to the banks and governments, it will have much, much, more security.

Probably. I still think Bitcoin is one of the biggest spit stirrers (both politically and socioeconomically, despite Bitcoin being a currency and apolitical) since JFK got the "red bills" printed up, though.

The higher the total network hashrate, the more money a government entity would need to spend to perform a 51% attack.

Still much less than what is spent on wars. If they want to declare war on bitcoins then it entirely enters the realm of possibility.

How do you know this? Do you have a magic crystal ball that predicts what the total network hashrate will be if/when a government decides to try a 51% attack?

In today's terms, the money needed to launch a 51% attack is insignificant compared to what is spent on wars. If needed, it is not inconceivable that money will not be a factor. Which returns me back to the original question. Does the technology have anything to prevent a 51% attack or is the bitcoin system helpless against such an attack? No one has addressed this. I believe this is the part that needs to be discussed, not whether governments will attack or whether they have resources to do so.

If the technology can have some way to prevent a 51% attack or a strategy can be formulated to prevent it, it is well worth discussing.

When Bitcoin is worth enough to pose even a slight threat to the banks and governments, it will have much, much, more security.

How so? From what I am reading, a 51% attack is all that is needed to cripple the system. Why an entity would do so or have the resources to pull it off is secondary. I am more interested in seeing if the technology can provide or it can be improved to prevent such a thing from occurring.

The higher the total network hashrate, the more money a government entity would need to spend to perform a 51% attack.

Still much less than what is spent on wars. If they want to declare war on bitcoins then it entirely enters the realm of possibility.

How do you know this? Do you have a magic crystal ball that predicts what the total network hashrate will be if/when a government decides to try a 51% attack?

In today's terms, the money needed to launch a 51% attack is insignificant compared to what is spent on wars. If needed, it is not inconceivable that money will not be a factor. Which returns me back to the original question. Does the technology have anything to prevent a 51% attack or is the bitcoin system helpless against such an attack? No one has addressed this. I believe this is the part that needs to be discussed, not whether governments will attack or whether they have resources to do so.

If the technology can have some way to prevent a 51% attack or a strategy can be formulated to prevent it, it is well worth discussing.

BTC Network is too small, that's why a 51% attack is so easy.Want to prevent it? Wait for ASIC's and call more miners.

The higher the total network hashrate, the more money a government entity would need to spend to perform a 51% attack.

Still much less than what is spent on wars. If they want to declare war on bitcoins then it entirely enters the realm of possibility.

How do you know this? Do you have a magic crystal ball that predicts what the total network hashrate will be if/when a government decides to try a 51% attack?

In today's terms, the money needed to launch a 51% attack is insignificant compared to what is spent on wars. If needed, it is not inconceivable that money will not be a factor. Which returns me back to the original question. Does the technology have anything to prevent a 51% attack or is the bitcoin system helpless against such an attack? No one has addressed this. I believe this is the part that needs to be discussed, not whether governments will attack or whether they have resources to do so.

If the technology can have some way to prevent a 51% attack or a strategy can be formulated to prevent it, it is well worth discussing.

BTC Network is too small, that's why a 51% attack is so easy.Want to prevent it? Wait for ASIC's and call more miners.

The government can also purchase ASIC's and mobilize miners. Not to mention bribing/coercing existing miners.

The higher the total network hashrate, the more money a government entity would need to spend to perform a 51% attack.

Still much less than what is spent on wars. If they want to declare war on bitcoins then it entirely enters the realm of possibility.

How do you know this? Do you have a magic crystal ball that predicts what the total network hashrate will be if/when a government decides to try a 51% attack?

In today's terms, the money needed to launch a 51% attack is insignificant compared to what is spent on wars. If needed, it is not inconceivable that money will not be a factor. Which returns me back to the original question. Does the technology have anything to prevent a 51% attack or is the bitcoin system helpless against such an attack? No one has addressed this. I believe this is the part that needs to be discussed, not whether governments will attack or whether they have resources to do so.

If the technology can have some way to prevent a 51% attack or a strategy can be formulated to prevent it, it is well worth discussing.

BTC Network is too small, that's why a 51% attack is so easy.Want to prevent it? Wait for ASIC's and call more miners.

The government can also purchase ASIC's and mobilize miners. Not to mention bribing/coercing existing miners.

The idea of a future security, it's because every day the BTC can change it's code for block generation and many other things.Godammit, we already said if the government wants it today, he can.Now close the thread.

The higher the total network hashrate, the more money a government entity would need to spend to perform a 51% attack.

Still much less than what is spent on wars. If they want to declare war on bitcoins then it entirely enters the realm of possibility.

How do you know this? Do you have a magic crystal ball that predicts what the total network hashrate will be if/when a government decides to try a 51% attack?

In today's terms, the money needed to launch a 51% attack is insignificant compared to what is spent on wars. If needed, it is not inconceivable that money will not be a factor. Which returns me back to the original question. Does the technology have anything to prevent a 51% attack or is the bitcoin system helpless against such an attack? No one has addressed this. I believe this is the part that needs to be discussed, not whether governments will attack or whether they have resources to do so.

If the technology can have some way to prevent a 51% attack or a strategy can be formulated to prevent it, it is well worth discussing.

BTC Network is too small, that's why a 51% attack is so easy.Want to prevent it? Wait for ASIC's and call more miners.

The government can also purchase ASIC's and mobilize miners. Not to mention bribing/coercing existing miners.

The idea of a future security, it's because every day the BTC can change it's code for block generation and many other things.Godammit, we already said if the government wants it today, he can.Now close the thread.

If Bitcoins really become a dominant force and threaten any of the major currencies, is it not possible that they would launch a 51% attack and control or destroy the bitcoin system?

I've seen this concern many times, but never seen a satisfactory explanation as to how exactly Bitcoin would threaten anyone or anything more than any other technology. After some struggle, the automotive industry is starting to embrace the electric car. The Internet is embraced by even most totalitarian regimes and corporations (for perfectly rational reasons), just like the printing press was embraced. If Bitcoin is a robust, effective, and disruptive technology, more smart people will recognize it than deny it - regardless of their ideological background.

***

As for the ease of >50% disruption (I wouldn't call it an attack) - hash rate, ASICs, etc. have nothing to do with it. Network security is simply determined by the total investment in Bitcoin mining. Assuming most miners use best available technology, and the same best technology available to a malicious entity, this malicious entity would need to invest at least that much money to claim >50% of the network. Current estimates are on the order of several tens of millions of USD. While this would disrupt validation of new payments, it would also become obvious to everyone. My coins would be perfectly safe, even if I am temporarily unable to spend them. I am not qualified to discuss counter measures, but I imagine the community could quickly set their nodes to only accept connections from known honest miners and nodes as a temporary fix.

They'rethere, in their room.Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.

If Bitcoins really become a dominant force and threaten any of the major currencies, is it not possible that they would launch a 51% attack and control or destroy the bitcoin system?

I've seen this concern many times, but never seen a satisfactory explanation as to how exactly Bitcoin would threaten anyone or anything more than any other technology. After some struggle, the automotive industry is starting to embrace the electric car. The Internet is embraced by even most totalitarian regimes and corporations (for perfectly rational reasons), just like the printing press was embraced. If Bitcoin is a robust, effective, and disruptive technology, more smart people will recognize it than deny it - regardless of their ideological background.

The concern here is that it is not just disruptive, it can threaten government control of money at which point they can consider destroying it. The purpose of this discussion is to see what can be done to prevent such a thing instead of just sitting and convincing ourselves that such a thing would not happen.

As for the ease of >50% disruption (I wouldn't call it an attack) - hash rate, ASICs, etc. have nothing to do with it. Network security is simply determined by the total investment in Bitcoin mining. Assuming most miners use best available technology, and the same best technology available to a malicious entity, this malicious entity would need to invest at least that much money to claim >50% of the network. Current estimates are on the order of several tens of millions of USD. While this would disrupt validation of new payments, it would also become obvious to everyone. My coins would be perfectly safe, even if I am temporarily unable to spend them. I am not qualified to discuss counter measures, but I imagine the community could quickly set their nodes to only accept connections from known honest miners and nodes as a temporary fix.

Thanks for providing the suggestion. This can indeed be one way. What else can be done?

You're so cute, how you all worry about 51% attacks and incredibly complex setups to achieve such an attack.

Wanna kill bitcoin? Here's how you kill bitcoin.

Wait for bitcoin conference, wait till all the movers and shakers are there, blow up the building, then claim it was a meeting of terrorists building doom machines, post pictures of mining rigs as evidence.

You're so cute, how you all worry about 51% attacks and incredibly complex setups to achieve such an attack.

Wanna kill bitcoin? Here's how you kill bitcoin.

Wait for bitcoin conference, wait till all the movers and shakers are there, blow up the building, then claim it was a meeting of terrorists building doom machines, post pictures of mining rigs as evidence.

Remebers me of how some people failed at trying to kill Hitler, except the part of mining rigs.